Bruno Waterfield has been the Brussels correspondent for the Telegraph since 2007. He has been reporting on politics and European affairs for over 13 years, first from Westminster and then from Brussels since January 2003.

No to no, the referendum-free EU

The consensus that there should be no more referendums, Irish or otherwise, seems to be growing as European Union types shut up shop for the summer. It has become clearer and clearer following June's Irish No, along with previous referendums rejections in France and the Netherlands, that Europe's political establishments can no longer carry people with them when it comes to the EU.

The latest contribution to the debate on how to proceed after Ireland's referendum rejection comes from Charles Grant and the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank with an outlook close to the Foreign Office. Mr Grant's "Three scenarios" are honest enough to admit that what ever happens – even if the Lisbon Treaty is buried – the substance will quickly be "salvaged".

In fact, Mr Grant's article would better be called "two scenarios", as outside a second Irish referendum "yes" (wishful thinking), two of his three options are essentially the same: "an attempt to salvage bits and pieces of the Lisbon treaty".

Like Foreign Office mandarins, Mr Grant argues that "the demise of the Lisbon treaty would not be a catastrophe…But Europeans would still be much better off with the Lisbon treaty".

True to EU officialdom, British diplomatic and Whitehall form, which involves doing it all behind the backs of voters, Mr Grant suggests the following: "EU governments would then try to salvage the few parts of the Lisbon treaty that could be implemented without its ratification."

This means extra justice powers and the creation of an EU diplomatic service – even without the creation of a European foreign minister. Before the Irish No, talks (denied by minister in the House of Commons) proposals were well advanced and could be quickly dusted off. What can not saved right away can be smuggled in with amending "Accession Treaty" as early as late 2009 or early 2010, when Croatia joins the EU.

"The EU governments could use the Croatian accession treaty – expected in a couple of years – to help their salvage operation. All accession treaties have to adjust EU voting rules, but they are not normally put to referendum. At the moment, France and Germany say they will block further enlargement until the Lisbon treaty is ratified. But that line would probably change if Croatian accession offered the chance to save parts of Lisbon. Evidently, the EU could not credibly use an accession treaty to transfer powers from the member-states to the EU, for example through more majority voting. But an accession treaty could introduce the 'double majority' voting rule and create the new High Representative."

"Such use of an accession treaty would be politically controversial, and EU leaders would haggle over the contents. But if Lisbon was dead, they would not want to negotiate a new treaty from scratch, and they would see the arrival of the Croats as an opportunity."

Plan C – for Croatia – was being discussed in early June, as noted here on this blog the day the Irish voted: "Ireland, like the rest of the Europe, does not hold referendums on EU enlargement treaties and with new protocol opt-outs Dublin may be able to get a new Accession Treaty past the Irish parliament without another popular vote".

Mr Grant is worth taking seriously. He has previous form. Even before the EU Constitution fell three years ago, he charted the approach for the Lisbon Treaty with uncanny precision.

Writing in the European edition of the Financial Times six days before the French referendum of 2005, Mr Grant predicted a new Treaty based on cleaning up existing treaties and keeping "key provisions of the Constitution".

"Most EU governments would wish to avoid further referendums and would ratify this by parliamentary vote. Eurosceptics would demand referendums, complaining that arrogant politicians were again building the EU behind the backs of the people. The governments should face down such demands, pointing out that the constitutional treaty and the overwhelming majority of its provisions had been abandoned. They should explain that the new mini-treaty was about technical adjustments, to make the EU work better, rather than transfers of new powers to the EU."

Mr Grant was spot on in May 2005, is he right again in August 2008?

"The response of the EU oligarchy and its political allies to the Irish people's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty shows that they are intent on occupying the moral low-ground," writes Frank Furedi, over on Spiked.